The question through imposition is this , " Why is it evident that those opposed to federalism exclaiming fervently as constitutional lists then laud statism ( anti federalism ) to oppress negative liberties due to individual citizens via a us tenth then ninth amendment ? " .

POLL Question Pole :

Which terms are sufficient qualifiers associated with this identifier , " Pundits lauding statism over federalism while claiming to be constitutional lists seeking to criminalize abortion procedures " ?

a . such political pundits promote an elimination of negative liberties for abortion
b . such political pundits expect violations of us 10th and 9th amendments at the state and federal level
c . such political pundits seek a violation of non aggression principles to forsake negative liberties implicitly entitled through individualism
d . such political pundits seek a violation of non aggression principles to forsake positive liberties not implicitly entitled through individualism
e . such political pundits promote strict control over positive liberties afforded for abortion procedures as provided by state or federal budgets which had been acquired through indirect taxation of commerce
f . such political pundits represent a majority of public opinion
g . such political pundits represent a majority of registered and active voters
h . such political pundits represent an inconsistency for constitution lists which assert a legitimacy of 10th and 9th federal amendments regarding abortion wrights
i . such political pundits should seek non nomian legalism Political Policy Psychological Pathology
j . such political pundits do represent entitlement to individual citizens to participate in abortion as provisioned through us constitutional law - Constitutional Review Of Abortion

The full text of the amendment reads as follows:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]

Sew , is yearn vote cast against negative liberties of individualism with respect to abortion ?

Sew , is yearn vote cast against a proposition that individual liberties are superior against statists as well as federalists as prescribed in 10th and 9th us amendments ?

The ninth and tenth amendments have for all intents and purposes been dismantled by the Supreme Court. Statism has lost to federalism. Remember that our system failed under statism with the Articles of Confederation. However the constitution does allow us, not so much individual rights, but a process to put our beliefs into law. So what I or you think no longer matters, its what society deems necessary that is.

They Went That A Weigh Way

" They Went That A Weigh Way "

Originally Posted by Spookycolt

The ninth and tenth amendments have for all intents and purposes been dismantled by the Supreme Court. Statism has lost to federalism. Remember that our system failed under statism with the Articles of Confederation. However the constitution does allow us, not so much individual rights, but a process to put our beliefs into law. So what I or you think no longer matters, its what society deems necessary that is.

There are some aspects where statism has been lost to federalism because of federalism ; there are some aspects where statism has been lost to federalism because of individualism .

Where statists or federalists establish positive wrights endowing positive liberties , there will continue to be contention for funding from anti-federalists and ant-statists even when funds are gathered through indirect taxation .

Where anti-statists or anti-federalists establish negative wrights or positive wrights which endow negative liberties , a greater understanding of individualism may be perceived .

Since an abortion ban would effect ONLY women (obviously, from a biological standpoint)....it would be inherently discriminatory. One group of Americans would be denied rights based on gender (same as basing it on race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation or whatever).

Ruling after ruling from the Courts for decades have stated that States do NOT have the right to engage in discriminatory laws. "Equal protection" from the 14th Amendment clearly upholds that.

So since you can't "ban men from having abortions" as a legitimate and serious legal premise and thus create a law that would effect ALL citizens....it is un-Constitutional to ban abortion, as it creates UN-equal protection under the law for women.

Populated Thought Schemes

" Populated Thought Schemes "

Originally Posted by GordonGecko

I think the basic premise is this...Since an abortion ban would effect ONLY women (obviously, from a biological standpoint)....it would be inherently discriminatory. One group of Americans would be denied rights based on gender (same as basing it on race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation or whatever).
Ruling after ruling from the Courts for decades have stated that States do NOT have the right to engage in discriminatory laws. "Equal protection" from the 14th Amendment clearly upholds that.
So since you can't "ban men from having abortions" as a legitimate and serious legal premise and thus create a law that would effect ALL citizens....it is un-Constitutional to ban abortion, as it creates UN-equal protection under the law for women.
So Roe trumps (no pun) federalism.

* Evaluation Attempt Number Zero *

The premise is interesting ; thanks .

Could a premise to avert discrimination include a voting method where only women are able to pull levers to ratify propositions defined for abortion ?

Due interests of a state include clauses requiring non discrimination between individual citizens , which is in compliance with non aggression principles and consistent with us tenth and ninth amendments .

* Anecdotal Expectation *

The timelines for the onset of feet all viability and the onset of feet all sentience are coincidental .

Per roe^wade , the twenty four week standard for viability stipulates a fourteenth amendment criteria that , to receive wrights as a citizen , an individual must have been born , and equal protection with a citizen requires birth ; also , after viability , birth was deemed relative whence a state interest grew on behalf of a potential individual citizen .

Rather than constitutional , a sentience assertion proposes a precept that empathy is a criteria to represent a feet us by proxy .

Rather than constitutional , a sentience assertion proposes a precept that sentience is a criteria to be included in a homo sapiens sapiens category .